Talk:Radar jamming and deception

Discussion

I add a no references tag. I also add a stub tag; this topic is huge and the article can be expanded dramatically.--C6H12O6 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The statement "However, most products called radar jammers on the market do not effectively jam police radar guns but can cause an error reading giving the user time to respond (by slowing down in the case of speed guns)" needs verification. To my knowledge this is not true. If this statement alludes to the legal Rocky Mountain Radar "passive scramblers" i.e. "Phaser II", then it should just say it plain don't work. (See radarjammers.com for many reliable testing sources and videos of the product failing to produce an effect). If the statement refers to real jammers (illegal) such as the Scorpion, etc, they do actually jam radar. When used, they will scramble doppler tone and produce no readout, according to Speed Measurement Lab tests (http://www.radarbusters.com/activeradarjamtestsarticle.cfm) -- this sounds to me like real jamming, not just producing error readout.

Agreed, I believe the author was confusing radar jammers with laser jammers when he/she talked about the jammer cause an error reading. I reworded and cited two sources. --Aka042 (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Deception Jamming

The reference to "repeater jamming" should be disambiguated. I believe the most-often used term is Deception Jamming. Furthermore, emphasis should be added that for effective deception jamming to happen, the jammer must first analyze the target radar's operating parameters, such as frequencies, PRFs, scanning patterns, etc. This of course creates the need for pre-combat electronic surveillance and analysis of an enemy's EW systems. It also creates a need for electronic discipline, such as Wartime Reserve Modes.

I will revisit this article in a couple months and if no experts act on this suggestion I will take it up myself, after cultivating sources.Wikkileaker (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Fighter plane picture

Why is this relevant to the article? Does that specific plane have any specific jammer type? Which one? If no info is given, the picture should be removed as irrelevant. GMRE (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Found the info and added it. The reader shouldn't have to follow some ambiguous link just to find out why it's relevant. GMRE (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Self-driving vehicle LIDAR interference

I’m attempting to find more information about what happens when multiple LIDAR are in the same vicinity on a highway. Elon Musk of Tesla has said that LIDAR is a bad direction to go for autonomous driving.

Has anyone proposing LIDAR considered what the effects would be of having every vehicle in bumper to bumper traffic on a 12-lane highway going in both directions, with every vehicle equipped with one or more LIDAR scanners?

The environment would be awash in laser light scatter across the ground and on every vehicle, and it may be difficult for one LIDAR to distinguish its own transmitted light from the “noise light” around it.

This is a difficult question to answer because LIDAR 3D scanner technology is still extremely expensive. it would cost an absolute fortune to outfit 100 or more vehicles with this many LIDAR to perform a real-world moving high density freeway cross-interference test.

This seems like a topic that would be important to add as a section in this article eventually. But I don’t know if any official scholarly or technical research has been done of this issue. — DMahalko (talk) 02:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)